by United States of The One Percent » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:28 pm
by Arcov » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:32 pm
by Allet Klar Chefs » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:43 pm
United States of The One Percent wrote:IMO the first three are unnecessary
by United States of The One Percent » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:53 pm
Arcov wrote:Every scientific paractice seems ridiculous taken out of context. Breeding fruit flies seems "stupid" in or out of space regardless, but it was extremely vital for the discovery of the importance of genetics. Seeing what kind of affects space and gravity have on genetics would have might be huge. Manipulation of this kind of trait could have impacts on research down here.
And that's just that. The original human exploration found such "unnecessary" discoveries like MRIs. Human exploration in space, even if it is as "vain" as you think it is accelerates scientific development.
Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?
No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years, and elements of NASA technology have been incorporated into MRI techniques. In the mid-1960s, as a prelude to NASA’s Apollo Lunar Landing Program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed the technology known as digital image processing to allow computer enhancement of Moon pictures. Digital image processing has found a broad array of other applications, particularly in the field of medicine, where it is employed to create and enhance images of the organs in the human body for diagnostic purposes. Two of these advanced body imaging techniques are CT or CATScan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
by Mad hatters in jeans » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:53 pm
"It's not something we're discussing publicly right now," said CEO Kemmer. Then, Jason Dunn, the chief technology officer, beckoned, dropping his voice as he grinned.
"We're going to build a Death Star," he joked softly, referring to the giant space station in the "Star Wars" movies that could blow up planets. "Then it's all going to be over."
by United States of The One Percent » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:54 pm
by Arcov » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:46 pm
United States of The One Percent wrote:
Before we shoot humans into the vacuum of space to see if it has any affect on genetics, shouldn't we have at least a theory that genetic transmission might be different under different conditions? It seems to be the same everywhere on Earth. And Tang*, pens that can write upside-down and Velcro* are not reasons enough to justify the sacrifice of human beings.
United States of The One Percent wrote:* Which weren't human space program spinoffs anyway. Neither was the MRI:Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?
No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years, and elements of NASA technology have been incorporated into MRI techniques. In the mid-1960s, as a prelude to NASA’s Apollo Lunar Landing Program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed the technology known as digital image processing to allow computer enhancement of Moon pictures. Digital image processing has found a broad array of other applications, particularly in the field of medicine, where it is employed to create and enhance images of the organs in the human body for diagnostic purposes. Two of these advanced body imaging techniques are CT or CATScan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
by WestRedMaple » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:46 pm
Space colonization is a pipe dream. There are no suitable planets anywhere nearby* for humans to spread their infectious violence and greed, thank whatever gods may be.
Imagining human beings are so important to the cosmos that they would need to be preserved beyond their expiration date, whenever that is, is the acme of vanity.
by The Orson Empire » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:49 pm
by Tubbsalot » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:58 pm
by The Orson Empire » Sat Sep 20, 2014 3:59 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:I voted "it's pointless and expensive," because human exploration of space is, indeed, idiotic. Then the OP talks about something which is not space exploration. The people on the ISS aren't exploring shit, and it would be very difficult to automate what they're doing.
by Napkiraly » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:00 pm
The Orson Empire wrote:Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket, as their are numerous catastrophes that can happen to Earth, such as an asteroid impact.
Also OP, about you saying that space colonization is a "pipe dream", people in the past said the same thing about cars, airplanes, and computes, yet they were all wrong. If you wish to stay on this rock and die, feel free, but don't try to stop the rest of us from making progress.
by Tubbsalot » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:00 pm
The Orson Empire wrote:Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket
by Tubbsalot » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:01 pm
The Orson Empire wrote:Tubbsalot wrote:I voted "it's pointless and expensive," because human exploration of space is, indeed, idiotic. Then the OP talks about something which is not space exploration. The people on the ISS aren't exploring shit, and it would be very difficult to automate what they're doing.
What an ignorant statement.
by Arcov » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:02 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:The Orson Empire wrote:Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket
We will always have our eggs in one basket, which is the universe. We will die out eventually. I don't see any pressing need to ensure self-replicating blobs exist for 20% longer than they otherwise might.
by The Orson Empire » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:02 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:The Orson Empire wrote:Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket
We will always have our eggs in one basket, which is the universe. We will die out eventually. I don't see any pressing need to ensure self-replicating blobs exist for 20% longer than they otherwise might.
by Tubbsalot » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:09 pm
Arcov wrote:Then there isn't much of a point in doing anything is there?
The Orson Empire wrote:People with your opinion are the reason why progress is stifled. Like I said to the OP, if you want to stay on this planet and die, then by all means go ahead. However, do not try to stop the rest of us who actually want to make progress from doing so.
by Arcov » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:11 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:Sure there is. I like eating delicious food, for example, so I'm going to try to ensure that I can eat delicious food whenever I like.
However, there's no real value in extending the existence of humanity by however many years. I don't care about the concept of the species. I care about actual humans.
by Olivaero » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:17 pm
by Blazedtown » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:19 pm
United States of The One Percent wrote:According to the Associated Press, here is a partial list of the latest experiments planned for the space station:
-- X-raying 20 mice
-- breeding fruit flies
-- plating metal on behalf of a golf club manufacturer
-- measuring surface winds, which may actually improve hurricane forecasting
-- experimenting with 3D printing so astronauts can make spare parts and/or build space colonies and/or play with Legos
IMO the first three are unnecessary, the fourth could be accomplished without direct human intervention, and if we didn't have humans in space we wouldn't have to manufacture spare parts, colonies or toys for them.
My contention is that the human space program is too expensive and too dangerous to want to continue. We can satisfy our curiosity with mechanical probes without risking the lives of our best and brightest, whose talents and funding would be better employed on Earth's problems. Space colonization is a pipe dream. There are no suitable planets anywhere nearby* for humans to spread their infectious violence and greed, thank whatever gods may be. Imagining human beings are so important to the cosmos that they would need to be preserved beyond their expiration date, whenever that is, is the acme of vanity.
So suck it up. There's no sci-fi pie in the sky, we're all going to die.
*And thank you but yes, I've seen the list on Wikipedia. Those are all too big, too hot, too cold or too far away.
by Seno Zhou Varada » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:31 pm
by WestRedMaple » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:33 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:The Orson Empire wrote:Ending Human space exploration is a very bad idea. If Humans are to avoid going extinct, then we need to colonize other planets. It is never a good idea to have all of our eggs in one basket
We will always have our eggs in one basket, which is the universe. We will die out eventually. I don't see any pressing need to ensure self-replicating blobs exist for 20% longer than they otherwise might.
by The Liberated Territories » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:36 pm
by WestRedMaple » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:37 pm
Tubbsalot wrote:Arcov wrote:Then there isn't much of a point in doing anything is there?
Sure there is. I like eating delicious food, for example, so I'm going to try to ensure that I can eat delicious food whenever I like.
However, there's no real value in extending the existence of humanity by however many years. I don't care about the concept of the species. I care about actual humans.The Orson Empire wrote:People with your opinion are the reason why progress is stifled. Like I said to the OP, if you want to stay on this planet and die, then by all means go ahead. However, do not try to stop the rest of us who actually want to make progress from doing so.
If "shooting humans onto a barren shithole of a planet" is your idea of progress, good for you. Personally I'd rather spend our limited resources on things which are actually useful, like actual research. I'd also note that you are pretty much guaranteed to stay on this planet your entire life and die here, and in the off-chance that this isn't true, you'd have an awful quality of life on some other planet and then die there anyway.
The risk of world-destroying asteroid impacts and whatever is enormously overstated.
by Wisconsin9 » Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:40 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Avrelis, Bienenhalde, Daphomir, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Entropan, Galimencia, Hidrandia, Osmauri, The Black Forrest, The Huskar Social Union, The Jamesian Republic, Tlaceceyaya, Xenopheonixion
Advertisement